Ibogaine Works
All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident. -- Arthur Schopenhauer
From samizdata. On Budweiser beer:
Many American beers are under-rated... this ain't one of them. -- "Spike" from "Buffy the Vampire Slayer"
From a sig at smith2004:
Anarchism is founded on the observation that since few men are wise enough to rule themselves, even fewer are wise enough to rule others. -- Edward Abbey
Kevin Tuma - Uncle Hogwash - Cartoon commentary on Uncle Sam's continually growing nose. Hehe.
N.Z. Bear at BBSpot - Operation TIPS Hotline Transcript - Hehe. [picks]
I sent the following in response to a trt-ny thread (invitation-only dicussion group) about hunters having their cars searched:
I've always read that if a cop "requests" to search your vehicle that you should politely deny him permission, but in no way impede him should he go ahead and search without your permission.
I have never had a cop request to search my vehicle, but as far as I'm concerned, the minute he searches without a warrant and without my permission, he is a criminal, responsible for violating my civil rights under color of law. It seems to me that he is in violation of US Code, Title 18, Section 242:"Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death."I don't see any exception in this for the police. On the contrary, it appears to be directed AT the police. It also explicitly protects non-citizens from being treated differently than citizens, contrary to the new hold-em-as-long-as-you-like policy for aliens that was put into place after 9/11. I think that a cop is automatically qualified as threatening to use a dangerous weapon, certainly he is so if he unholsters his service pistol, so if he performs such an unlawful search, he should visit Camp Fed for 10 years. If he arrests you for resisting, then the kidnapping clause goes into effect, and he may be sentenced to death.
We haven't had much luck that I've heard of in imprisoning police under this statute. On the contrary, the courts have ruled that they can search vehicles almost at will.
So how long do we continue to allow this. How long will we allow our cars to be searched with impunity before we start saying, "Do you have a warrant? No? Then you will not search my vehicle. If you are stupid enough to attempt to do so, I will defend my constitutional rights with extreme prejudice." How long?
Patrick K. Kroupa - Ibogaine Works - an email from a heroin lover (done it since the age of 14) giving a good view of how he sees "addiction", his opinion of "detox" methods, and how Ibogaine works for him. I like the way this guys mind works. Copied from Dana Beal's email newsletter. [cures-not-wars]
Ibogaine is NOT a "cure" for drug addiction, although it very well may be the greatest solution for drug-dependence. It will NOT magically rewrite everything inside your head, it will not hand you a brand new life, and it will never make all your memories of how great heroin is; go away.
HOWEVER: It *DOES* bring you back to the point where you are making CHOICES and NOT following compulsions.
...
Yeah, I'm way-fucked, I light up half the DSM, I'm manic-depressive as hell, dysfunctional, and I LOVE heroin... However, after a lifetime of using the shit... I have 3 years completely clear off ALL opiates/opioids. If I ever make the CHOICE to use heroin again, it will be just that; a CHOICE that I make.
Heroin rocks. I will always know that, I have learned it, I cannot unlearn it. But it is no longer this force beyond my control which is compelling me to keep chasing the shit, no matter what the consequences happen to be (and with our wonderful "War on Drugs," they can be pretty fucking insane).
...
What ibogaine appears to do is his a <RESET> on your brain. Saying that "addiction" (by which I mean drug-dependence. I am talking about the changes that take place on a neurological basis, in response to chronic, long-term self-administration of dope) is reversible, isn't exactly correct either.
What it appears to do is reset your brain to a point BEFORE you ever became drug-dependent in the first place. Addiction, what addiction?
William L. Anderson at LewRockwell.com - My Stateless Neighbors: The Amish - good short view of one group of people who mostly avoid the state. [lew]
Bob Wallace at LewRockwell.com - A Fairy Tale - well, we can dream, can't we? [lew]
Sunni Maravillosa at Sierra Times - Why Women Should Care about RKBA - an oldie but goodie from a new Sierra Times Ranch Hand. Congrats, Sunni, on your new gig. This long piece is a good overview of the meaning of the second amendment, why women should be armed, and some of the arguments for and against carrying weapons for self defense. [sierra]
Rick Wiles at American Freedom News - Kofi Annan tells nations to "modify their constitutions" - to be in compliance with the World Court. KABA has a better idea: [kaba]
Mr. Annan needs to either: A) modify his power-grabbing to exclude the United States Constitution; B) modify his significantly inferior constitution so it reflects our own; or C) send us some blue helmets to modify with ventilation.
A or B is preferable, but more people every day expect and are prepared for C.
Nelson Lund at The Virginia Institute - A Primer on the Constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms - Links to a PDF file highly recommended by KABA. I haven't read it yet. [kaba]
John Leyden at The Register - Fingerprinting of UK school kids causes outcry - The new library card for British kids is a thumb print. Good way to get them accustomed to state control, eh? [register]
Leonard Whitley at The Federal Observer - Truth IS Stranger Than Fiction: The Racist Roots of Gun Control - one black man discovers an article outlining how gun control was originally invented to disarm black slaves, starts to distribute it to his friends, and is firmly requested to stop doing so. By the KKK? By a White Supremicist group? Nope. By the NAACP and Al Sharpton. I added a comment about JPFO's Gran'pa Jack #4: Gun Control is Racist, which covers the same topic in a less scholarly format. [firearmnews]
Julian Epstein at The Nation - Doublespeak on Guns - Mr. Epstein asks what would happen if cops and courts treated the second amendment like every other amendment, and decides that he doesn't like the result. I on the other hand, think it would be just fine. [trt-ny]
Individual rights, such as freedom of speech and religion, to which the Attorney General claims gun rights are analogous, occupy a unique area of American law. The Court has repeatedly held that legislative encroachments in these areas are presumptively invalid unless narrowly tailored to meet compelling government interests. On this basis, the Court has invalidated laws in the areas of affirmative action, free exercise of religion and freedom of speech. Recently, in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, it held that a law prohibiting virtual child pornography was too broadly drafted, and the putative harm it sought to prevent too speculative to pass constitutional muster. Were the Court to embrace the Bush view on the Second Amendment, the likely result would be to invalidate many federal and state gun laws, like the popular Brady law and the ban on assault weapons.
In passing the 1993 Brady Act, which is applied to the general population to screen out felons and other miscreants from buying firearms, the House and Senate judiciary committees did not consciously undertake the exactingly narrow drafting requirements necessary to overcome the constitutional hurdles placed on such rights as speech or religion. Rather, they acted under the authority of the Constitution's commerce clause, which gives Congress broad legislative discretion. And while Justice's brief, arguing that the prohibition on gun possession by those with domestic-violence restraining orders could pass the "narrow tailoring" constitutional test it seeks generally for gun laws, may be correct, it is unclear, even improbable, that the broader purpose of laws like the Brady Act (background checks for everyone) could survive the test.
Similarly, because the ban on military-style assault weapons, intended to remove the tools of many gang-type street massacres, was broadly drafted to apply to everyone, that law could be invalidated on the grounds that it is not sufficiently tailored to prohibit access by those with criminal records. So, too, could scores of state and local laws, such as the ban on handgun possession in the District of Columbia. The new proposal by Senators John McCain and Joseph Lieberman to apply background checks at gun shows could also be constitutionally dead on arrival should the Administration view of gun rights become law.
Duj Pepperman - Escape From Heaven by J. Neil Schulman. Marketing of J. Neil's new book with a link to the first two chapters and to the hardcover at Amazon ($21). Ordered it. PDF and HTML versions will be available eventually from pulpless.com. [smith2004]
